Shadowrun

Catalyst Game Labs => Catalyst's Shadowrun Products => Topic started by: Nightmare on <02-10-21/1653:49>

Title: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Nightmare on <02-10-21/1653:49>
Get it over at DriveThruRPG:

[ur=https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/346364/Shadowrun-Street-Wyrd-Core-Magic-Rulebook?src=hottestl]here![/url]
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Xenon on <02-10-21/1725:19>
fixed (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/346364/Shadowrun-Street-Wyrd-Core-Magic-Rulebook?src=hottestl)
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <02-11-21/0028:11>
Any word on dead tree versions?
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: FastJack on <02-11-21/0803:05>
Any word on dead tree versions?
I believe it's available, since it's in the Catalyst Store (https://store.catalystgamelabs.com/collections/shadowrun/products/shadowrun-street-wyrd-core-magic-rulebook?variant=33093128355874). Check with your FLGS.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <02-11-21/1849:34>
Thanks I had checked amazon to no avail.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <02-12-21/1450:30>
Random question do they add touch indirect attack spells into the game and if so how do they work, I don't think that has ever been answered in any of the previous editions. 2 defense tests one for touching one for the spell or is the spell the only test.

Edit to add.

Spell creation could you make something like a stronger levitate 100kg per hit, can you make a levitate that does not bizarrely require you look at it all the time?
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Sir Ludwig on <02-12-21/1531:19>
Shinobi,

I ordered a dead tree version from Catalyst the day it came out.  I do not believe it has shipped because on a FB group J.Hardy commented they wouldn't ship until Early March.

I tried to find the exact post but couldn't.  SSDR I think is on the same group so maybe he can confirm/disprove what I said.

Regards,
SL
   
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Lormyr on <02-14-21/1226:41>
Random question do they add touch indirect attack spells into the game and if so how do they work, I don't think that has ever been answered in any of the previous editions. 2 defense tests one for touching one for the spell or is the spell the only test.

I have not thoroughly read the book yet, so it's possible I missed something important. That said, you can design indirect touch attack spells, which appear to follow the normal rules for indirect spell attack/defense pools.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <02-14-21/1240:11>
Street Wyrd doesn't give new rules for delivering touch attacks.

In this edition, it looks like Touch range spells involve two rolls (pg. 131).  First roll to establish the "touch" and 2nd roll for the spellcasting test itself.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Lormyr on <02-14-21/1252:33>
SSDR you may want to get your folks to look at the "affect specific type of test" ingredient too. Since according to CRB page 35, any dice pool roll is a "test", that ingredient alone is a complete balance obliterater.

Unlimited defense dice pool test and unlimited drain resistance test immediately come to mind since neither are affected by the skill augment cap, may also effect soak but I haven't verified wordings there.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <02-14-21/1304:42>
SSDR you may want to get your folks to look at the "affect specific type of test" ingredient too. Since according to CRB page 35, any dice pool roll is a "test", that ingredient alone is a complete balance obliterater.

Unlimited defense dice pool test and unlimited drain resistance test immediately come to mind since neither are affected by the skill augment cap, may also effect soak but I haven't verified wordings there.

My hot take on that is it HAS to be skill test related, since it mentions that this bonus has to apply to a narrower focus than a single non-specialized skill.  The example says Blades is ok but Close Combat is not... so if Close Combat is not acceptable on account of being too "wide" surely rolling REA+INT to resist an attack is even more "wide" than Close Combat.  Beyond that.. you could give yourself +6 dice (for +3 Drain) but it'd fall under the same pitfalls as +6 dice from a F6 Focus... if you don't have at least -2 dice from penalties somewhere, then you're still capped at +4.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Lormyr on <02-14-21/1802:35>
SSDR you may want to get your folks to look at the "affect specific type of test" ingredient too. Since according to CRB page 35, any dice pool roll is a "test", that ingredient alone is a complete balance obliterater.

Unlimited defense dice pool test and unlimited drain resistance test immediately come to mind since neither are affected by the skill augment cap, may also effect soak but I haven't verified wordings there.

Beyond that.. you could give yourself +6 dice (for +3 Drain) but it'd fall under the same pitfalls as +6 dice from a F6 Focus... if you don't have at least -2 dice from penalties somewhere, then you're still capped at +4.

Is that not for skill tests, or did I miss some other changes that makes it apply to any dice pool (even att + att) period?
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <02-14-21/1828:46>
Street Wyrd doesn't give new rules for delivering touch attacks.

In this edition, it looks like Touch range spells involve two rolls (pg. 131).  First roll to establish the "touch" and 2nd roll for the spellcasting test itself.

I forgot that, but it still leaves questions.

Its odd for them to dodge again once you touch with a indirect attack though so can they? That would be quite the power boost for touch spells if they only get the close combat dodge part as a defense test. Direct I can thematically see 2 defense tests in that its now targeting your mind or something, but indirect its weird we already resolved my flaming fist hit you.

 I always prefer when they reduce die rolls, now assuming its 2 defense tests its 4 rolls to deal with if one attack hits, then if its indirect they resist damage, and direct or indirect there is a drain test. That is a lot of die rolls to resolve one single attack, and then the mage used his 2nd major to do it again. I wish they had just gone with sorcery is all you need to deliver a touch attack spell.

Thanks though.  Well its been 6 editions where its never explicitly explained, but people are pulling it from general rules. And every edition since at least 2e people brought it up in forums.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <02-14-21/2257:56>
SSDR you may want to get your folks to look at the "affect specific type of test" ingredient too. Since according to CRB page 35, any dice pool roll is a "test", that ingredient alone is a complete balance obliterater.

Unlimited defense dice pool test and unlimited drain resistance test immediately come to mind since neither are affected by the skill augment cap, may also effect soak but I haven't verified wordings there.

Beyond that.. you could give yourself +6 dice (for +3 Drain) but it'd fall under the same pitfalls as +6 dice from a F6 Focus... if you don't have at least -2 dice from penalties somewhere, then you're still capped at +4.

Is that not for skill tests, or did I miss some other changes that makes it apply to any dice pool (even att + att) period?

The augmented skill limit does only apply to skill tests.

What I was just saying is the "affect certain test" spell ingredient (that you brought up) looks to me to only be compatible with skill tests... it looks to me that you cannot use this spell on att + att tests.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Lormyr on <02-15-21/0605:50>
SSDR you may want to get your folks to look at the "affect specific type of test" ingredient too. Since according to CRB page 35, any dice pool roll is a "test", that ingredient alone is a complete balance obliterater.

Unlimited defense dice pool test and unlimited drain resistance test immediately come to mind since neither are affected by the skill augment cap, may also effect soak but I haven't verified wordings there.

Beyond that.. you could give yourself +6 dice (for +3 Drain) but it'd fall under the same pitfalls as +6 dice from a F6 Focus... if you don't have at least -2 dice from penalties somewhere, then you're still capped at +4.

Is that not for skill tests, or did I miss some other changes that makes it apply to any dice pool (even att + att) period?

The augmented skill limit does only apply to skill tests.

What I was just saying is the "affect certain test" spell ingredient (that you brought up) looks to me to only be compatible with skill tests... it looks to me that you cannot use this spell on att + att tests.

Making it skill only would be the easiest fix. Still OP as hell, but I don't think we expect much less from the magic book.

But if it is either not changed or not intended to only affect skills, and can affect any test as it says, I am correct in my thinking that there is nothing that currently acts as an arbitrary cap to that, right? I.E, old school combat sense - enjoy however many hits you got.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <02-15-21/0912:33>
Making it skill only would be the easiest fix. Still OP as hell, but I don't think we expect much less from the magic book.

But if it is either not changed or not intended to only affect skills, and can affect any test as it says, I am correct in my thinking that there is nothing that currently acts as an arbitrary cap to that, right? I.E, old school combat sense - enjoy however many hits you got.

I'm going to reiterate something I said upthread because I think you must have missed it in the sea of text... or else you wouldn't have written that bolded portion :D

The "Affect a Specific Type of Test" ingredient includes the following text: "This has to be narrower than a single skill—". Attribute + Attribute is NOT narrower in focus than a single skill.

Regardless: I don't mean to disparage your point but this particular debate is largely meaningless... we can segue into your other concern about there being no limit on REA + INT dice to make someone unhittable, for example.  The Designing a Spell header rules (pgs. 45-46) make clear that the GM has a say in the spell's final details.  In no world does a player get to design a game breaking spell and force the GM to allow it.  The process is explicitly meant to be a two way participation.  I'd go so far as to say there's an implicit veto given to the GM, if the spell is fundamentally game-breaking (teleportation, communication with the dead, time travel, etc)

Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Lormyr on <02-15-21/0933:32>
The "Affect a Specific Type of Test" ingredient includes the following text: "This has to be narrower than a single skill—". Attribute + Attribute is NOT narrower in focus than a single skill.

I saw it. I am not saying that interpretation is incorrect or even that you are wrong bro, just that as written it is very subjective. For example, I personally would say that a defense test is more narrow than most skills, because you only get to do the one thing with it, where as choosing sorcery: spellcasting allows for incredible overall versatility.

we can segue into your other concern about there being no limit on REA + INT dice to make someone unhittable, for example.  The Designing a Spell header rules (pgs. 45-46) make clear that the GM has a say in the spell's final details.

GM always has the final say on everything, so that sentence is nothing new. No hard limit rule acknowledged, thank you. I was mainly just curious if the writing/design had improved any.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <02-15-21/1106:50>
Without the book I can't really talk balance, but spells to improve skills even narrow focuses of skills has thematic concerns for me.

One, its sort of the adepts trick to improve skills, sure they improve close combat and you are just improving blades, but its your character you know you are mr stabby. I'm not going to say its unbalanced without seeing it but it kind of sounds it as a spell and a sustaining focus is probably a shit ton cheaper than 4 points of magic devoted to improving close combat, so much cheaper that it being capable of being dispelled etc does not come close to enough of a cost. And yes, stabby is less broad than close combat, but again you know you are going to use blades. But my main thing is let adepts keep adept things. Not sure if this is good or bad for the mistake adept.

two that it open ended into any skill it sounds like, improving hacking should be outside the bailiwick of magic imo. I guess that ship has already sailed with adept abilities and at least with analyze object it was resisted by OR so it kind of fit the theme of tech/magic conflict.  but i'd like less of it not more. The boost tech item spell in the main book was a bad thematic choice to add imo.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <02-15-21/1152:10>
Without the book I can't really talk balance, but spells to improve skills even narrow focuses of skills has thematic concerns for me.

The 'didn't read it' version of spell design is basically this:  It gives a loose framework of how to construct a statblock for a player-designed spell.  Very loose.  It's intended, from start to finish, that the player and GM work cooperatively to ensure the spell both does what the player wants and doesn't unbalance the game.

If, for example, you feel that giving bonus dice to skills impinges on Adept territory, then either don't allow it, or make sure it's sufficiently costly for a player to step on those toes.  Easy peasy lemon squeezy!
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Lormyr on <02-15-21/1157:09>
Well we all know how magic goes in SR at this point, so I don't imagine anyone will be too surprised to find the new magic book is not well balanced. It's just how the designers and system roll at this point.

They also gave adepts a power to increase mental attributes, so it's basically just a magic buffet free for all at this point.

I have still only glanced through the book, so I am sure there are other elements worth discussion. You can do stuff like aoe heals, aoe buffs, and other things now too. At some point when I have time I will play around with the rules to see if you can create standard spells cheaper on drain just for comparison.

Also, SSDR I just saw there is an ingredient specifically for skills called skill boost, which affects an entire skill. I am now 100% convinced that "affect specific test" has to apply to anything that is a test, which is any dice pool. Otherwise why do both need to exist?

For discussion for those without the book, the wording on the two ingredients:

"Affect specific type of test"
When this ingredient is selected, choose a type
of test. This has to be narrower than a single skill—
for example, Blade attack would be appropriate,
but Close Combat attack would not be. Similarly,
a Lockpicking test could be selected, but not any
Engineering test. All tests of the selected type get
+2 or –2 dice per 1 point of Drain the caster adds.

"Skill boost"
A specific skill must be selected for this spell. The
maximum skill bonus is +4. Drain: Caster rolls a Sorcery
+ Magic (5 – Essence) test; each net hit increases
the skill and the Drain Value of the spell by 1.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <02-15-21/1234:26>
Right....

Skill boost doesn't exactly affirm the augmented skill limit as being bonus dice, but it does certainly imply that's how it works.

Affect Specific Type of Test doesn't say explicitly that it only works on skill specializations/expertises, but that's how I read it.  This goes back to the player-gm cooperation.  If you were my player and I were your GM, I'd be telling you you can't use this ingredient to make a spell that adds to defense tests.

If you were the GM and you wanted to allow it, who am I to tell you that you can't :)

But to circle back to your earlier point:  yes, it's correct that in the case of attribute+attribute tests, there's no limits on those tests above and beyond the attribute augmented limit.  If you do allow "affect specific type of test" to unbalance attribute-only tests, then... it's not the rule's fault when you allowed it, is it?  A GM seal of approval is required for every aspect of a player designed spell.  Not just by virtue of Rule Zero... the spell design rules are counting on GM discretion rather than trying to rely on hard-coding against unbalanced spells.  So even if the ingredient rule doesn't prohibit defense tests, the GM is expected to impose SOME limit to ensure game balance isn't broken. No dice at all?  +4 dice? something else?  GM discretion.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Lormyr on <02-15-21/1315:41>
Don't get me wrong SSDR, we're on the same page that allowing it to effect defense/drain/possibly soak depending on whether that counts as a test or not (I haven't looked) is not advisable. We just differ in our methodology for getting there. You're cool with light rules/heavy GM discretion, and I much prefer sharper rules writing/design that just doesn't allow this sort of abuse/loophole.

I just like rules to be clean so that mental gymnastics to create a reason within the rule that <insert abusable thing here> doesn't work in the abusable way isn't necessary.

Before I saw the separate skill ingredient I thought one could make a very strong case for the former to apply to any test. After seeing that a skill one is also included I personally think that denying the first within the confines of the mechanic would be incorrect. Just saying dude that's grossly OP and we're not allowing it is fine though.

Have you tried to get them to just insert a hard dice pool limit? I know you are in favor of it, but don't know if you've actually tried to convince anyone.

Another option might be: attribute +4 max, skill +4 max, skill spec/exp, and a max of other bonuses up to +4 that do not directly augment an att or skill. That could also help keep stuff sane.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <02-15-21/1612:49>
like I said, I would have liked to have seen an arbitrary cap on dice pools.  All dice pools can never be larger than X.

Would close the loophole you're talking about, and potentially could even dispense with the discrete bonus caps on this or that.  No bonuses that fall through cracks when there are no cracks! One limit to rule them all.  You never roll more than X!


I can dream.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Lormyr on <02-17-21/0705:09>
I'd just love to know what the hell some of these guys are thinking when they print some of this stuff.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <02-17-21/1045:02>
I'd just love to know what the hell some of these guys are thinking when they print some of this stuff.

I don't think they have a rules guy on their team. It is like a team of fluff writers trying to make a simulationist system instead of a narrative one where they might shine. Some of the mechanical flaws are so obvious just one rules guy would spot it just by glancing through even without any kind deep read.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Banshee on <02-17-21/1126:15>
I'd just love to know what the hell some of these guys are thinking when they print some of this stuff.

I don't think they have a rules guy on their team. It is like a team of fluff writers trying to make a simulationist system instead of a narrative one where they might shine. Some of the mechanical flaws are so obvious just one rules guy would spot it just by glancing through even without any kind deep read.

Hey ... some of us are rules guys,  but we can only do so much. Plus I avoid magic whenever possible. I pitched a complete overhaul back during 6e development and got shot down so I leave alone now.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Lormyr on <02-17-21/1210:07>
I don't think they have a rules guy on their team. It is like a team of fluff writers trying to make a simulationist system instead of a narrative one where they might shine. Some of the mechanical flaws are so obvious just one rules guy would spot it just by glancing through even without any kind deep read.

Hey ... some of us are rules guys,  but we can only do so much. Plus I avoid magic whenever possible. I pitched a complete overhaul back during 6e development and got shot down so I leave alone now.

I believe that the fluff, themes, and narrative writing is the real strength of Shadowrun. I can't speak for anyone else, but it is literally the only thing keeping me in the game currently.

That said, on the game mechanics side the editing and poorly balanced and worded rules really have sunk well below the tolerable level. I have no idea how much of that falls on the authors vs. developers vs. shot callers, but whomever is to blame, the final result is they desperately should be listening to more Banshee's and less of whomever they are allowing to do what they are currently doing.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <02-17-21/1257:39>
I'd just love to know what the hell some of these guys are thinking when they print some of this stuff.

I don't think they have a rules guy on their team. It is like a team of fluff writers trying to make a simulationist system instead of a narrative one where they might shine. Some of the mechanical flaws are so obvious just one rules guy would spot it just by glancing through even without any kind deep read.

Hey ... some of us are rules guys,  but we can only do so much. Plus I avoid magic whenever possible. I pitched a complete overhaul back during 6e development and got shot down so I leave alone now.

I can see that in the main book it is heavily segregated in style and quality by chapter but a rules guy needs to go over the entire book before release which is what I mean by on their team, the decisions and game math in the magic section for example have such obvious flaws to me. A dude who contributes who is good with rules, isn't the same as a dude in the decision process of the game. And in a supplement I just don't get it. It is one theme, its short, have a rules guy go over it before it ships.

Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Lormyr on <02-17-21/1311:09>
I can see that in the main book it is heavily segregated in style and quality by chapter but a rules guy needs to go over the entire book before release which is what I mean by on their team, the decisions and game math in the magic section for example have such obvious flaws to me. A dude who contributes who is good with rules, isn't the same as a dude in the decision process of the game. And in a supplement I just don't get it. It is one theme, its short, have a rules guy go over it before it ships.

You're not wrong bro.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Odsh on <02-17-21/1324:58>
Speaking of which, what does it take to become such a reviewer? Where does one apply, if that's even a thing?
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Xenon on <02-17-21/1348:21>
Random question do they add touch indirect attack spells into the game and if so how do they work, I don't think that has ever been answered in any of the previous editions.
Indirect combat spells in earlier editions were resolved as regular melee and ranged attacks and avoided (rather than resisted) like you avoid regular melee and ranged attacks (reaction + intuition). Indirect combat spells are not subtle they are always obvious. And the target will always try to avoid them. Unless surprised or otherwise unaware. The target only roll to avoid getting hit (reaction + intuition) once, targets don't get two chances to avoid getting hit. Magician need to resist drain no matter if the target successfully avoid getting hit or not (no mystic link needed in this case, even ranged spells didn't require that the magician actually could see the true light of their target).

Direct combat spells are typically not avoided, they are resisted (no matter if the target is surprised or unaware or if the target is fully aware of what you are doing). Touch based direct combat spells typically mean that you casually touch the target as you cast the spell. In some cases the target might be allowed to take a test to avoid getting touched. This was resolved as an Unarmed Combat test. If the target was successful then the magician would not cast the spell (the mystic link is not established yet) and there will be no drain to resist (same as if magician could not see the true light of the target for a ranged direct spell the mystic link would also not be established and the spell would not be cast). If the magician was successful (even a tie was enough) the magician would cast the spell as normal.

The rules around this are not very clear (because 5ed) but it was clarified (in the SR5 FAQ Thread IIRC).
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <02-17-21/1443:20>
6e never said you can't snipe spells at physical targets while you're astrally projecting.  6e only prohibits this while you're manifesting.  "Clearly", the intent is that the prohibition should also include projecting while not manifesting.  That's an example of where the "this is how it worked in 5e" rationale is reasonable.

I'm going to say that Touch range spells is NOT one of those cases.  6e explicitly breaks from prior editions in a couple ways, and that makes "well this is how 5e did it" particularly unreliable due to those hard breaks.

in 6e:
Direct combat spells are resisted by rolling WIL + INT (a hard change from prior editions)
Indirect combat spells are resisted by rolling REA + WIL (another hard change from 5e)

per page 131, this is what we know about how Touch range spells work in 6e:

Quote
(Touch Range), meaning the target
needs to be touched in order for the spell to
take effect (when touching an unwilling target,
make an unarmed Close Combat attack, and
subtract the target’s Armor rating from their
Defense Rating for this attack
)

It doesn't say whether this is in addition to or in place of the standard Sorcery + MAG test as normal for delivering the spell.

Logically the possibilities are:
1) it's in place of
2) it's in addition to
3) neither of the above

I don't think 1 can be right, as the Close Combat skill is only establishing that a condition for casting the spell is met.  Ultimately, the spell ought to still be cast via the Sorcery + MAG test. And, in the case of combat spells, you're going to compare AR to DR AGAIN for the spell itself, anyway.  But, acknowledged, option 2 slows the game down by adding another test to the process of resolving the action.  But, since both spells are resisted at least in part by Willpower, I don't have any "suspension of disbelief" problems with why an indirect combat spell might still "miss" after a touch was successfully established.

3) is an interesting wild card.  It's probably the realm for where house rules would go that rely on logic that is not present in what the 6e rules establish.  Something I could see as being completely reasonable is similar to what Xenon suggested in a different context: make one test but use the lower of the two involved skills.  Use the lesser of Close Combat or Spellcasting + MAG to deliver a Touch range spell in one test.  I don't think there's solid grounds for that to be an official take, but it's absolutely a fine way to run it for your own game.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Lormyr on <02-17-21/1503:56>
Speaking of which, what does it take to become such a reviewer? Where does one apply, if that's even a thing?

I'd ask SSDR. He has mostly good sense and at least has their ear sometimes. . .
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Banshee on <02-17-21/1527:24>
I'd just love to know what the hell some of these guys are thinking when they print some of this stuff.

I don't think they have a rules guy on their team. It is like a team of fluff writers trying to make a simulationist system instead of a narrative one where they might shine. Some of the mechanical flaws are so obvious just one rules guy would spot it just by glancing through even without any kind deep read.

Hey ... some of us are rules guys,  but we can only do so much. Plus I avoid magic whenever possible. I pitched a complete overhaul back during 6e development and got shot down so I leave alone now.

I can see that in the main book it is heavily segregated in style and quality by chapter but a rules guy needs to go over the entire book before release which is what I mean by on their team, the decisions and game math in the magic section for example have such obvious flaws to me. A dude who contributes who is good with rules, isn't the same as a dude in the decision process of the game. And in a supplement I just don't get it. It is one theme, its short, have a rules guy go over it before it ships.

Abso-fragging-lutely ... I actually proposed that very concept and volunteered to do it for free even.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Xenon on <02-17-21/1528:02>
Much harder to argue RAW in SR6 due to how the rules are written.
Almost all discussions boils down to RAI.


As you noted, RAW (as we are used to read it from previous edition) there is no longer any rule preventing you from casting physical spells on physical targets while projecting, but RAI it is still perfectly clear that this is [still] not intended.

In SR5 everything that was allowed and their exceptions were listed. You were not really meant to make any assumptions. It was a stricter language. (but as a result there was a lot of RAW argumentations were sentences and or even individual words were analyzed in absurdum)

In SR6 the main rules are still there, but many of all clarifying (but perhaps redundant?) rules were cut. It is deliberately a more open ended language. It made RAW discussions pretty pointless. But it also made it also made it much harder to understand what the original intent was. Unless perhaps you had some prior knowledge of how it used to work or that the author described more in detail what he meant.


Compare the following,

SR5
"Physical spells can affect both living and non-living objects in the physical world." followed by this clarifying (but in SR6 perhaps considered redundant) rule: "magician in astral space can only cast spells on targets that are present in astral space".

SR6
"Physical spells only affect the physical realm."

The fact that you can't cast spells on the physical plane from the astral plane was never established to begin with. It was simply assumed to be clear that it still work as it did in previous edition anyway (the book is full of cases like this - the 'grapple' discussion we had earlier, for example, is likely another case - but there are also others).

Later they talk about astral projection and that you can turn into a Ghost... It is here they mention that [while manifesting] "You also cannot cast spells at targets solely on the physical plane" (if it wasn't for this it would be tricky to understand if the intent was that it should work as before or if it was deliberately changed).
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Banshee on <02-17-21/1531:35>
Speaking of which, what does it take to become such a reviewer? Where does one apply, if that's even a thing?

Honestly... bug the hell out of Jason Hardy until he let's you in then grab every opportunity you can. That's what I did. Started out as a demo agent, then got on the Missions committee, the got into proofing ... and now he let's me write stuff. You can skip the demo agent if you go directly to Jason via Facebook or something... but working as an agent at the cons pit me in his personal space more often.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Odsh on <02-17-21/1621:02>
Speaking of which, what does it take to become such a reviewer? Where does one apply, if that's even a thing?

Honestly... bug the hell out of Jason Hardy until he let's you in then grab every opportunity you can. That's what I did. Started out as a demo agent, then got on the Missions committee, the got into proofing ... and now he let's me write stuff. You can skip the demo agent if you go directly to Jason via Facebook or something... but working as an agent at the cons pit me in his personal space more often.

Duly noted, thanks!

I'd ask SSDR. He has mostly good sense and at least has their ear sometimes. . .

 ;D
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <02-18-21/1926:03>
Sigh, I decided to buy this to give SR6 one more shot for our group, firing squad was a improvement not a big one but it was one, got the PDF, the book was supposed to be on the way, instead firing squad shows up which I already have. I hate reading PDFs.
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <02-24-21/2001:16>
The book is weirdly sparse of qualities, edge moves, heck metamagics.

Like this feels like book 3 of a magic series, you know book 1 is where they crank out 90% of the stuff that is missing from the previous edition, books 2 and 3 they start creating new content.  It is oddly organized, each section just feels kind of sparse.  Also the codified rules for spirit relations just made me sigh.  Don't give people numbers or a system, if you do it will get abused.  I can absolutely guarantee if I used them even my douchiest summoner would have +10 rep within 5-6 sessions, so basically I know handed the mage much much better spirits. 
Title: Re: Street Wyld Available
Post by: Beta on <08-01-21/1628:52>
I've finally bought this and am reading through it, and it has made me want to make a 6e spellcaster.

... just to take "Grimmy the Grimoire" as a contact :D

(I know this is very late input, but kudos to whoever put Grimmy in, I really enjoyed that)